Tuesday, December 06, 2011

A full-court press by the Norwegian media is currently underway to assign Fjordman at least partial responsibility for the Oslo massacre. This process is not limited to Norway: it is going on simultaneously in other countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands.

Please publicize what is described here in as many languages as possible. This must become common knowledge far beyond the borders of Norway.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Anders Behring Breivik’s defense lawyer, Geir Lippestad, is a member of the Labour Party in Norway. Did you know that? I didn’t either, until Steen brought it to my attention.

Mr. Lippestad, a member of the Socialist party that was targeted by his client, is now attempting to have Fjordman dragged into court to testify in his client’s defense. The reason? Fjordman is guilty of being exactly correct in his analysis that rampant immigrant crime would lead to rising tensions in Europe.

Suppose an American national security advisor had warned in the year 2000 about an imminent Islamic terrorist attack. Would he then be called in to testify for the defense of Osama Bin Laden?

Is it hateful speech to say that a bridge could collapse in the next big storm because it wasn’t built for this kind of weather?

In a recent article in the Norwegian newspaper VG, Anders Behring Breivik’s defense lawyer says that people like Fjordman bear partial responsibility for his client’s crimes. In another article, VG interviews one of the survivors from Utøya, who agrees with the decision to drag Fjordman into the trial. The article says that people like Fjordman and Hans Rustad (of Document.no) inspired and created Anders Behring Breivik.

Note from Fjordman:

VG’s debate editor, Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen, has undermined my right to reply for weeks, probably deliberately. VG even had the nerve to ask me for an interview just after they accused me of being morally guilty of aiding and abetting mass murder. I told them to get lost, and have already decided who will get my next interview. It will not be VG or any other Norwegian journalist.

VG has launched a massive campaign against my person. And it is not even a Leftist newspaper by Scandinavian standards.

From the point of view of the mainstream media, it is very important to complete a full character assassination of me. They know that a large proportion of the general population agrees with me on many issues, and we must be silenced.

Since the glory days of Chairman Mao, an effective way to silence dissent has been to make an example of a few individuals, and crush them in front of the public so that others dare not say anything similar. That’s what we’re witnessing now.

Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippestad is obviously trying to divert attention from his client’s crimes. I can understand that; it’s his job. But the way the mass media are buying into and applauding his tactics is absolutely shameful. It’s character assassination at its purest and very worst.

I do not intend to go silent. I will continue writing and telling the truth about Islam, the EU, Multiculturalism and mass immigration to the Western world.

The intimidation campaign will fail.

Afterword from the Baron:

Besides Fjordman (and me, obviously), the Norwegian court should subpoena the following individuals. These are just a few of the hundreds of “influences” cited in Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto:

Bruce Bawer

Paul Belien

Tony Blair

Judge Robert Bork

Andy Bostom

Bill Clinton

John Esposito

Hugh Fitzgerald

Pamela Geller

Christopher Hitchens

Charles Johnson

Bernard Lewis

Melanie Phillips

Daniel Pipes

Condoleezza Rice

Walid Shoebat

Robert Spencer

Serge Trifkovic

Keith Windschuttle

Bat Ye’or

All of these individuals are indeed “people like” Fjordman. Let them all step forward!

Every author who ever published anything cited by Anders Behring Breivik should be called. Why, they should demand to be subpoenaed.

Even if the authors are dead, the publishers can be held accountable. Haul them into court!

We have an army of examples. Later on I will post a full list of publications and people (living and dead) who were cited by the Butcher of Utøya. All of them should be brought to justice in a Norwegian court of law.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

45
comments:

The people responsible for the actions of Brevik are Leftwingers who have spearheaded the importation of hostile backwards foreigners and the promotion of their backward hostile cultures over the indigenous Europeans.

The violence is entirely predictable, and will continue to esculate, as the Leftist power elite seek to clamp down on the uppity indigenous hoi polloi via the abridgment of their rights, selective enforcement of law, etc....in part driven by these jackbooted responses to the uppity indigenous who are not enjoying being colonized by violent backwards Third Worlders (including having their women raped by them).

I am trying to get my head around what having "partial responsibility" means in this case.

Does it mean to say that everything else being equal if Fjordman's blog had not been written that it can be shown that Brevik actions would not have occurred?

A crazy assertion that can be used and abused to any ideological end - at best this assertion is purely in the realm of subjective belief recklessly expressed, at worst it is part of an ideological witch-hunt.

Instable individual gets weaponized, armed with a "manifesto" to provide the lamestreamists with ammo to attack the Counterjihad. Planned apprehension and victory for the welfare state security apparatus fails, AB, before going down the LH Oswald trail, shoots up the political offspring of the ones who set him up. It's the WoT's versus the CJs: "War on Terror good, War against Islam bad.."

Still, for some reason that merits some bold soul-searching, many CJs remain fully wedded to their belief in the welfare/warfare state system, and - in spite of open post-national borders and the US sponsored rise of Muslim Brotherhood regimes to power - entrusting it with the power to protect us, the people against the onslaught of Islamization.

Fjordman - You are a brave man and I tip my hat to you. I do think that the more your name is brought up, the more your writings will be read, your accurate, intelligent and erudite writings. I do hope so.

Should the state either convince Fjordman to admit to partial responsibility or simply attach partial responsibility to him, it seems logical to me that Fjordman might face criminal charges - or civil lawsuits from victims.

Sagunto, yes to all that you said. To be clear, it was the U.S. government rather than U.S. citizens who sponsored the rise of the Muslim brotherhood - all due to our Caliph-in-Chief Obama and his many 'moderate' Muslim friends.

Indeed, Obama may have violated our U.S. laws with his military adventure in Libya.

This is a bunch of baloney but Fjordmen is a brave man and stands for truth, that is what the extreme liberal left is afraid of. They don't want us to become aware so we can continue to be like sheep. I have posted numerous articles on GoV so who knows. Fjordman -keep up the good work, our prays are with you!!

I couldn't agree more with Aeon. "Walk through the door like you own it". Because you do.It is always a trivial twist of fate who gets to stand up and speak. I have found that to be true on minor local matters. However, your country has nominated you to speak. Do all of us proud.Please let GOV readers know if you need funds. I think I speak for this community when I say that our point of view is on the line and we will support you.

Aeon is dead right. Which is the reason for my own suggestion above. Fjordman's iron is hot NOW: strike. That is exactly why the Left are seeking to occupy him in court actions etc. A year and they will be back to ignoring him like always. He will be tomorrow'S chip wrapper.

If what I'm saying seems not quite right to you about not bothering to spend much time distancing yourself, the people who don't like you can't be convinced anyways.

You can't lose what you didn't have.

Of all the rest, they won't be convinced by anything but you being terribly maddeningly reasonable.

Anyone predisposed towards you already knows it is a hatchet job.

If you need help with resources to fight, you'll have to appeal to those who agree with you but are afraid to look conspicious in the face of a pretend majority. That is what they have in their favour - the silence and bullied agreement of those who are afraid to be seen to be a minority.

According to norwegian media, we are all insane right-wing extremists who question Sharia in the West. We should be "deconstructed" says a professor at UIO. I mean ... who's the extremists here? GO AHEAD FJORDMAN rationality will in the end win the argument.

Henrick - how do you suppose someone would do assassinating the character of someone who is willing to accept being considered crazy, or be hated?

If he is resonating with anyone, you think it will help? How? He unzipped tents and splattered the blood of terrified teenagers against the walls of them. You words can't compete with that.

How do you think your character assassination it will play in the political arena? The press? Flat, unconvincing, uncaring.

It literally does nothing. It doesn't help you, it doesn't help Fjordman, it doesn't do anything for your issues. It won't separate you from him in the media.

You don't just not gain anything from it, you lose. You spend all your time covering your butt, when it doesn't need to be covered.

You didn't do it. That fact DOESN'T MATTER. Get it?

You don't let the media or the left dictate what you are. So long as you are acting reflexively and defensively, you are a target.

This is an opportunity to start making yourself some space by ignoring their attempts to put his gun in your hand, and just refuse to pick it up while continuing to use the opportunity to be reasonable.

Good. Let them bring an argument to the table. The only thing they are ever putting down is philosophy that isn't backed up.

To deconstruct you, they actually have to have something CONSTRUCTIVE on the table. Wouldn't it be nice to actually wrestle with a something more realistic than propaganda?

If you have something that can be deconstructed because it isn't accurate, then welcome the chance to let it go. Having less baggage will make you guys more politically agile, and seriously you need it.

Aeon, Breivik is a criminal loonie, caught in the delusion that he is some kind of Grand Crusader Hero, and he apparently considers Fjordman his spiritual mentor. That illusion deserves to be shattered, and no one person can do that better than Fjordman himself. That even might bring Breivik a bit back to sanity.

It's a fact that I don't care much about super-criminal scumbags like Breivik. Deal with it...

Now WHY was it again that Breivik targetted a camp full of 15 year-olds, overwhelmingly non-Muslim middle-class blond Norwegians? Because of his rampant hatred towards Muslims?

That makes about as much sense as Breivik bombing a near-empty government building on a Friday afternoon.

Which makes about as much sense as raiding the apartment of a blogger who was a "witness" - because he was cited by Breivik.

No sense at all? Well, we'll see what happens once Breivik is released after a few years from his five-star Norwegian prison. Will we hear from him again? Or will he be vanished, perhaps resurfacing somewhere on a Carribean island, with a new name and a slightly different face, and a great deal of money? In which case, the above might all be just a very logical sequece of events...

Green Infidel might be on to something here, but I've seen no hard evidence that Breivik is 'sponsored'. His mental report, however, whas quite a surprise for a cynical, calculating character like him.

Now responsibility is being blown everywhere else than the person who committed the crimes, and some guilty person(s) have to be found. One can't blame the Jews, or?

If only the mainstream media spent as much time looking at what Islamic terrorists spent their spare time reading prior to carrying out their attacks, eh?

I'd like to put the following dilemma to these Norwegian journalists:

No sane person would read an essay of Fjordman's and then behave as AB did. We know that assertion is true because all those journalists writing about Fjordman have read his essays, and they have not gone on to behave as AB did.

The alternative - the other "horn" if you like - is that all those journalists writing about Fjordman have not read any of Fjordman's essays, so they don't actually know what they're talking about.

"People Like Fjordman". I first interpreted the title to mean that Fjordman is very popular.

As far as getting the CounterJihad message out to those who arrive when there is hot news, would it be possible to set up a small list of blog posts? Something of a "What we believe - short version" may be appropriate. Not every new reader will have the time to wade through the a large portion of the lenghty postings and discussions that have been held here over the past few years. This is despite the obvious excellence of much of the writings.

Finally, is the CounterJihad at the stage where more formal organizaions are needed. Say a legal defense fund like the ACLU, or something like the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation)?

"Sagunto, yes to all that you said. To be clear, it was the U.S. government rather than U.S. citizens who sponsored the rise of the Muslim brotherhood - all due to our Caliph-in-Chief Obama and his many 'moderate' Muslim friends."

Yes absolutely, not the American people, but the US government. That goes way beyond BHO of course, since the US political establishment (of the bi-factional, one party state) always seems to end up supporting Muslims around the globe.

Likewise, the American people probably had no wish to sponsor all of these NWO activities and treaties, like NAFTA and the NAU, but since the very act of voting means supporting the republicrat system one way (stupid) or the other (evil), there's always the Hesperadian cop-out to apportion some of the blame to the American voter ;)

I have to admit, the declaration by the institutional apparatus of the state that Breivik cannot be accountable for his own actions does play rather strongly into the theory that his attack on those schoolchildren was a false-flag operation.

Combined with the manifesto that Breivik apparently did not write himself, the lack of any forceful response to his attack when lives were at stake, the focus on "investigating" Fjordman, and now the effort to drag Fjordman in and have him tried and convicted in Breivik's place...I think that there is not any evidence that this entire affair wasn't planned by the political elite of the state to secure their position and discredit opposing points of view.

That does not constitute proof. However, when the officials of the state presume to appeal to their authority to use force against anyone, the burden is on them to prove that it is justified. If they cannot even provide evidence that they are not the actual culprits, then they must not be permitted to do as they please.

Taking the logic of the defense lawyer for partial responsibility he unknowingly has blamed all Muslims of any higher, visible stature than a taxi driver with complicity in every Islamic act of jihad.

But Islam is not what is on trial here. What is on trial is not even Anders but that a man who commits murder is the only person responsible for the murder. It would be like me blaming the policeman for the fact that I ran a stop sign. If it weren't for the policeman I wouldn't have been guilty of breaking the law.

He quoted much, said so up front. His interviews match his writing style. His writing style is pretty much consistent with some evolution over the last decade. His continue strategy since being arrested remains consistent with his written work.

Before you go off on the conspiracy angle, it behooves you to educate yourself on the matter.

In this case, Fjordman is being brought in on behalf of the defense.

With how the Norwegian legal system seems to work, I do wonder if one could make the case that the restrictions placed on the defense by the state might suggest that their limited degree of action restricted by the state's certainty of its own fairness, coupled with being in the literal employ of the state might suggest that the state has undue advantage in pressuring witnesses. Particularly for political purposes.

If I was a lawyer, that might be a case I'd find interesting to make.

I don't know the Norwegian system well enough to say if you could do this, but if Fjordman or others start finding that they are being bullied by the state maybe they could find some civil advocate to make such a case.

(as to Obama, he attends a Church. You can disagree with his politics, but there has to be a point at which you seem like it would be reasonable for you expect that someone who grew up Muslim might actually convert and mean it. Attack the man's policies - attacking the religion of his parents just makes you look ridiculous.)

I forgot to say that I support Fjordman.His intent to bring to light to the fact that fools are rushing in where angels fear to tread. The fools are allowing another nation of people to spill into their country basically unhindered. The angels are the logical thinkers who mean the best for their beloved country. He should be lauded not demonized.

Any time that the institutional response to an incident seeks to make the case that the perpetrator is not wholly responsible, but that an opposing political viewpoint is to blame, there is plenty of reason to suspect that the incident may have been a false-flag operation because it is being effectively used for that purpose.

When it is further apparent that the evidence linking that incident with the political opposition being blamed for it is entirely generated within the genesis of the incident itself (and there is no evidence outside of Breivik that the Counter-Jihad had anything to do with him), it becomes implausible that the "flag" assigned to the operation is a 'true flag'. That is to say, Breivik does not appear to be a genuine member of the Counter-Jihad.

When the actual perpetrator is treated leniently while the investigation and trial focuses on those who have no connection with the incident, then that is definite evidence that the incident was a false flag operation.

As for Obama, the criteria for renouncing Islam are very clearly defined by current interpretations and Barack Obama has not met any of them. The exercise of taqyya in pretending to be a Christian is part of Koranic Islam, and all "proper" Muslims understand this point. The renunciation of Islam must be judged by Islamic religious authorities, and a fatwa calling for the murder of the apostate must be issued for Islam to be truly renounced.

I've met former Muslims...you know that they have renounced Islam because they are under a death sentence from any "faithful" Muslim.

An attack on any of these might just have kick-started a series of further events, which may have had a small chance of leading to something like "2083"...

But nope, instead of these, he channels his huge hatred towards Muslims into attacking some 15 year-old non-Muslims at a youth camp. People who haven't even started their careers. Youngsters who may have changed their opinion many times in the following years, like the current editor of the UK's most "right-wing" newspaper, the Daily Mail - a former leftist. In his youth years, he might just have attended such a camp.

What does targetting such people do? To me the likelihood of it bringing about a "2083" seems minute, if not nonexistent, and I haven't seen anything either in his interviews, or in his copy-pasted "manifesto" to suggest that (for those who believe otherwise-please correct me if I'm wrong?).

On the other hand, however, such an attack could be very useful in persuading public opinion and the state apparatus of a need to crack down on "politically-incorrect" views. Which has indeed been the case with Fjordman, and which PC media all over Europe have been calling for.

So, does the idea of this attack having just such a goal seem such a silly conspiracy? Or feasible, and perhaps even logical? After all, it wouldn't be Europe's first "Reichstag fire moment"...

Entire books have been written with reams of evidence supporting the inevitable conclusion that Obama IS a practicing Muslim.

Obama himself slipped in his first Presidential campaign when he referenced his Muslim religion during a major press interview. The host corrected Obama and put words in his mouth that Obama was Christian, BUT Obama had referred to his Muslim religion.

Well, Obama being a moron who can't spell his own name without a teleprompter is a different matter. But yeah, genuine ex-Muslims tell it like it is, "don't tell any Muslims how to find me, not even my own family, because my blood is halal and they are under a religious obligation to kill me for my apostasy." Obama is clearly practicing taqiyya when he claims to be Christian. And the Muslim street obviously understands this, even if they don't always feel he's doing enough with his position.

Which is a little bit similar to Breivik's position. The pictures of him strolling about to help police investigators get a clear narrative of his day of slaughtering schoolchildren are very telling. Look at them. Look at him. Look at how they interact with each other, notwithstanding that he is in manacles. Are we seriously supposed to believe that he has done something that they truly find as horrifying as we all found it?

It is just that simple. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but the chummy pal of my enemy is?

Breivik deserves punishement because he killed several people and he's dangerous, but Fjordman is innocent. Is clear that today freedom of speech is a right that belongs only to left wing parties and left winged people. Everybody is free to say everything against jewish but no one can say anything against muslim.Fjordman has been punished because Norway hates Fjordman.